« legal ethics odds and ends (March 19, 2013) |
| "The 50th Anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright" »
Posted by Renee Newman Knake at 09:29 AM | Permalink
I can only imagine what WalMart will pay its lawyers. $24,000 per year, maximum? If you are going to deliver low cost legal services, you can't have a high cost provider, i.e., your employee delivering the service. Let's remember that WalMart keeps prices low by ruthlessly negotiating with its suppliers and, while you can keep plastic container prices down by forcing Rubbermaid to accept only a miniscule markup on its products (WalMart effectively bankrupted Rubbermaid), the only way to keep "law" prices down is to limit what you pay your lawyers. And law school graduates are supposed to service their debt or raise their families on what WalMart and Target would pay? Let me know when law professors touting these sorts of ideas are willing to leave their teaching posts to go practice in their local WalMarts.
Doug Richmond |
March 20, 2013 at 07:00 AM
Doug, would it be so bad to have a low-cost (and admittedly low-paid) option? In a number of jurisdictions right now, 85% of family law cases involve at least one self-represented litigant. And a firm offering a $10,000 salary for a full-time attorney ($4.81 an hour!) still got 32 applicants in the first week it was posted. Yes, maybe opening the legal profession to outside investment will bring downward pressure on wages in general--but if it also improves both access to justice and employment opportunities for law school graduates, wouldn't it be worth it?
Cassandra Burke Robertson |
March 20, 2013 at 02:12 PM
The law schools are trying to lower their output and increase their price. I suspect they'll succeed. If so, don't we need some sort of lower-cost "law worker"?
John Steele |
March 20, 2013 at 05:05 PM
A $10,000 per year job is not an "employment opportunit[y]"; the fact that a firm making such an offer got 32 applicants in the first week is disturbing on several levels. Given law school debt levels, I am not sure that any downward pressure on lawyers' wages is acceptable. Is what John calls a "law worker" a solution? I am not sure.
Doug Richmond |
March 20, 2013 at 05:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.